This week’s episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting referrals to a Catholic adoption agency violates the Free Exercise Clause). Both cases are more than just the headlines suggestion, and are indicative of the Court’s current make-up. Law starts at (04:40).
Brett and Nazim return from vacation to see what we can learn about judges from the cases of Van Buren v. U.S. (deciding “access” under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Borden v. U.S. (deciding reckless mindset under ACCA), Sanchez v. Myorkas (deciding admission status for permanent residency, and Garland v. Dai (deciding whether the 9th Circuit can make up immigration rules). Law starts at (07:20).
Get ready to learn, folks, because this episode discusses time, poison, wars and 160 million dollars worth of garbage in the context of Guam v. U.S.. Although its mostly a case about statutory interpretation; and it’s core, its the case you didn’t know you needed to know more about. The law is a moving target here, but there’s less nonsense than you may think.
This week’s episode covers three recent decisions, CIC Services v. IRS (procedure for challenging IRS notice requirements), Caniglia v. Strom (community care-taking exception for the home) and Edwards v. Vannoy (retroactivity of unanimous verdicts). Law starts at (04:07) and an explanation for the episode title follows soon after.
Listen, there’s a lot going on here. As a general proposition, this week’s episode asks Brett and Nazim to narrow down which classification of lawyers would be best to sit with at a wedding table. Amidst discussing other wedding and marriage-related topics, your boys somehow find time to discuss recent opinions Facebook v. Duguid, Jones v. Mississippi, and Torres v. Madrid. A time stamp would be insulting to both of us, so we’ve done away with it this week.
Buckle up, because this week we’re talking crack cocaine, online dating, and positive aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency. This week’s case is Terry v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court can amend a poorly-written statute on mass incarceration. Law starts at (07:25).
The Perks of Being a Rich, Conservative Fast Food Franchise Owner
Posted: May 2, 2021 by Nazim in Episode!This week’s episode covers the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Bontas, which covers whether a California law that requires the disclosure of charitable donors violates the First Amendment. The law starts with a sick burn on Nazim at (05:00).
This week’s episode revisits the good old days of high school, specifically the case of Mahanoy School District v. BL, where the Supreme Court must decide whether a high school that suspended a student for making a vulgar Snapchat about school sports violates the First Amendment. The law kinda generally takes shape around (11:00) but stays pretty consistent.
This week’s episode covers a proposed 13 justice Supreme Court in the context of a genie that only grants political wishes, along with Google’s victory against Oracle in the realm of the Paw Patrol, sexy workplaces, and the Venus De Milo. Law starts at (05:48).
That’s right, Hulkamaniacs. This week’s supersized episode covers this year’s Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction. A time stamp would be pointless, but there’s a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.
